IntroductionAcademic dishonesty is an issue of concern world-wide. In universities it has become a stumbling block in genuine research activity, crippling talent and the potential of students who are future leaders in every field. The advent of the Internet has made it easier for students to indulge in dishonest practices. As Young (2001) has pointed out, "in recent years, professors have been frustrated by the way more and more students use the Internet to cheat-by plagiarizing the work of other students, by copying material from online reference works, by buying term papers from online paper-writing companies, and by other means." On the other hand, college and university libraries' records show a bleak picture of borrowing books by the students for their studies and research work. This is an indication that most students depend on web-based information. While this in itself may not indicate that such information is being used unethically, it does point out an enhanced potential for doing so."Academic dishonesty consists of any deliberate attempt to falsify, fabricate or otherwise tamper with data, information, records, or any other material that is relevant to the student's participation in any course, laboratory, or other academic exercise or function" (Delta College, 1999). The Delta College definition further explained that academic dishonesty includes acts of cheating or other forms of academic dishonesty that are intended to gain unfair academic advantage. This includes plagiarism, which is deliberately presenting work, words, ideas, theories, etc., derived in whole or in part from a source external to the student as though they are the student's own efforts. Other academic misconduct includes falsifying or fabricating data, records, or any information relevant to the student's participation in any course or academic exercise, or tampering with such information as collected or distributed by the faculty member. On a similar note, Loyola Marymount University (2012) provides some examples of academic dishonesty, such as cheating and facilitating cheating, plagiarism, falsification of data, unauthorized access to computers or privileged information, improper use of Internet sites and resources, and improper use of non-print media. These various types of academic dishonesty show the complexity of the issue. It is important to understand the complexity and difficulty in order to find effective ways to resolve or minimize dishonesty.To deal with this problem a number of universities have introduced policies and procedures. For instance, University of Botswana's (UB) basic goal is to foster a learning environment that helps students to grow personally and professionally, and to attain academic excellence. UB expects all its students to uphold the highest personal and academic standards of honesty and integrity. A task group on academic dishonesty among UB Students was set up by the Deputy Vice Chancellor's office in March 2005. Consequently, UB
{"title":"Academic Dishonesty: A Comparative Study of Students of Library and Information Science in Botswana and Zambia","authors":"A. Akakandelwa, P. Jain, Sitali Wamundila","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.137","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionAcademic dishonesty is an issue of concern world-wide. In universities it has become a stumbling block in genuine research activity, crippling talent and the potential of students who are future leaders in every field. The advent of the Internet has made it easier for students to indulge in dishonest practices. As Young (2001) has pointed out, \"in recent years, professors have been frustrated by the way more and more students use the Internet to cheat-by plagiarizing the work of other students, by copying material from online reference works, by buying term papers from online paper-writing companies, and by other means.\" On the other hand, college and university libraries' records show a bleak picture of borrowing books by the students for their studies and research work. This is an indication that most students depend on web-based information. While this in itself may not indicate that such information is being used unethically, it does point out an enhanced potential for doing so.\"Academic dishonesty consists of any deliberate attempt to falsify, fabricate or otherwise tamper with data, information, records, or any other material that is relevant to the student's participation in any course, laboratory, or other academic exercise or function\" (Delta College, 1999). The Delta College definition further explained that academic dishonesty includes acts of cheating or other forms of academic dishonesty that are intended to gain unfair academic advantage. This includes plagiarism, which is deliberately presenting work, words, ideas, theories, etc., derived in whole or in part from a source external to the student as though they are the student's own efforts. Other academic misconduct includes falsifying or fabricating data, records, or any information relevant to the student's participation in any course or academic exercise, or tampering with such information as collected or distributed by the faculty member. On a similar note, Loyola Marymount University (2012) provides some examples of academic dishonesty, such as cheating and facilitating cheating, plagiarism, falsification of data, unauthorized access to computers or privileged information, improper use of Internet sites and resources, and improper use of non-print media. These various types of academic dishonesty show the complexity of the issue. It is important to understand the complexity and difficulty in order to find effective ways to resolve or minimize dishonesty.To deal with this problem a number of universities have introduced policies and procedures. For instance, University of Botswana's (UB) basic goal is to foster a learning environment that helps students to grow personally and professionally, and to attain academic excellence. UB expects all its students to uphold the highest personal and academic standards of honesty and integrity. A task group on academic dishonesty among UB Students was set up by the Deputy Vice Chancellor's office in March 2005. Consequently, UB ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"141-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Essential Principles and ValuesThe importance of focusing on goals rather than methods also applies, I believe, to the professional life of an archivist. In order to meet their obligations to employers, or to society (in the broadest conceptualization of their public role), archivists should keep focused on the end results they hope to achieve through professional endeavors. As the venerable civil rights song says, "Keep your eyes on the prize." Archivists should not be distracted from their ultimate purposes by the daily obligations of work (putting one foot carefully in front of the other), nor concern for what others are doing (looking leftor right), nor the shorter time frames of projects and deadlines (looking ten feet ahead). To keep such a focus, archivists can begin by articulating their underlying principles, their core values as members of a service-oriented profession. These core values provide a basis for defining archivists' ultimate objectives-the prizes they seek to achieve-and for articulating the rules of ethical behavior they should follow in meeting their societal responsibilities.With many obligations and limited time and resources, it is easy to get tangled up in daily or weekly "to do" lists. Working archivists usually focus on the what and how of professional duties, often with little time to reflect on why they are accessioning records, arranging disordered files, preparing finding aids, and answering reference inquiries. Considering professional values and goals openly and mindfully will help archivists to remember the ultimate purposes and societal benefits of the archival enterprise. It will help them to provide better services for researchers, employers, and their fellow citizens. If archivists do this well, it should reinvigorate the archival profession and enable them to fulfill their crucial role in modern society.Such an approach embodies what James O'Toole calls "a moral theology of archives": "When archivists appraise and acquire records, when they represent them in various descriptive media, when they make them available for use, they are engaging in activities that have moral significance beyond the immediate concerns of managing forms of information." As O'Toole states, these archival responsibilities suggest "how a concern for historical accountability is a part of the archival mission, a way of elaborating a practical moral theology of archives."1 Such a perspective, I think, must come from a combination of attention to the core values of the profession and consideration of the ethical framework within which archivists fulfill their responsibilities.Archival Codes of EthicsDefining standards of professional conduct provides a key component of establishing the societal role of any group of professionals. It marks a significant difference between an occupation-people working at similar tasks-from a profession, which has both public and private responsibilities to carry out, based on specific expertise, trainin
{"title":"Values and Ethics","authors":"Randall C. Jimerson","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.21","url":null,"abstract":"Essential Principles and ValuesThe importance of focusing on goals rather than methods also applies, I believe, to the professional life of an archivist. In order to meet their obligations to employers, or to society (in the broadest conceptualization of their public role), archivists should keep focused on the end results they hope to achieve through professional endeavors. As the venerable civil rights song says, \"Keep your eyes on the prize.\" Archivists should not be distracted from their ultimate purposes by the daily obligations of work (putting one foot carefully in front of the other), nor concern for what others are doing (looking leftor right), nor the shorter time frames of projects and deadlines (looking ten feet ahead). To keep such a focus, archivists can begin by articulating their underlying principles, their core values as members of a service-oriented profession. These core values provide a basis for defining archivists' ultimate objectives-the prizes they seek to achieve-and for articulating the rules of ethical behavior they should follow in meeting their societal responsibilities.With many obligations and limited time and resources, it is easy to get tangled up in daily or weekly \"to do\" lists. Working archivists usually focus on the what and how of professional duties, often with little time to reflect on why they are accessioning records, arranging disordered files, preparing finding aids, and answering reference inquiries. Considering professional values and goals openly and mindfully will help archivists to remember the ultimate purposes and societal benefits of the archival enterprise. It will help them to provide better services for researchers, employers, and their fellow citizens. If archivists do this well, it should reinvigorate the archival profession and enable them to fulfill their crucial role in modern society.Such an approach embodies what James O'Toole calls \"a moral theology of archives\": \"When archivists appraise and acquire records, when they represent them in various descriptive media, when they make them available for use, they are engaging in activities that have moral significance beyond the immediate concerns of managing forms of information.\" As O'Toole states, these archival responsibilities suggest \"how a concern for historical accountability is a part of the archival mission, a way of elaborating a practical moral theology of archives.\"1 Such a perspective, I think, must come from a combination of attention to the core values of the profession and consideration of the ethical framework within which archivists fulfill their responsibilities.Archival Codes of EthicsDefining standards of professional conduct provides a key component of establishing the societal role of any group of professionals. It marks a significant difference between an occupation-people working at similar tasks-from a profession, which has both public and private responsibilities to carry out, based on specific expertise, trainin","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"197 1","pages":"21-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionArchivists ride the horns of dilemmas, constantly juggling priorities to minimize conflict. Such dilemmas include* the need to conserve versus the need to handle delicate items,* the need to acquire versus lack of storage space,* privacy rights versus the public's right to know,* the need for financial patronage versus the need for autonomy,* an item's enduring value versus the cost of its conservation requirements, and* the lure of new preservation technologies versus their unproven lon - gevity.To choose the lemma, that "horn" upon which to ride, archivists use intuition, judgment based on training, institutional guidelines, and documents such as the Core Values of Archivists and the Code of Ethics for Archivists (Society of American Archivists, 2011, 2012, 2012). These two documents purport to guide the behavior of archivists who master their 2,300 words. Their histories, found, for example, in Horn (1989, pp. 65 -66) and Cox (2008, pp. 1128-1129), show that committees repeatedly refined these documents, rather than defining fundamental concepts such as "ethics," "trust," and "profession."I suggest that such codes prevent archivists from acting ethically in any sense other than a circular "according to the code of ethics." Karl Popper (1966, p. 552) presented a similar position, excerpted in van Meijl (2000, p. 74) and Wallace (2010, p. 178):What does it [scientific ethics] aim at? At telling us what we ought to do, i.e., at constructing a code of norms upon a scientific basis, so that we need only look up the index of the code if we are faced with a difficult moral decision? This clearly would be absurd; quite apart from the fact that if it could be achieved, it would destroy all personal responsibility and therefore all ethics.Hauptman and Hill (1991, p. 43) also discussed ethical codes with respect to responsibility:[C]ommentators have come to the individual's defense in this context by insisting that since individual members of an organization only do part of a job or only follow instructions (orders) or, by extension, only adhere to an ethical code [emphasis added], they really cannot be held responsible for general negative results.I suggest a somewhat different standard based in part on new or re-worded principal precepts. The bulk of this paper explains the need and derivation of these precepts followed by suggestions for implementation, and the conclusion restates the precepts. Please note that this paper discusses archival enterprise as practiced in the U.S., although the concepts also should apply to archives worldwide. Broader and deeper discussions of archival codes of ethics, per se, occur in Neazor (2007) and Dingwall (2004). Any discussion of ethics, however, requires us archivists to ride our lemmas boldly through several quandaries.First Quandary"[W]e [philosophers] have first rais'd a Dust, and then complain, we cannot see" (Berkeley, 1734). Many wits denigrate philosophy through this quotation, and frankly, I ag
{"title":"Archival Ethics and the Professionalization of Archival Enterprise","authors":"Ron Houston","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.46","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionArchivists ride the horns of dilemmas, constantly juggling priorities to minimize conflict. Such dilemmas include* the need to conserve versus the need to handle delicate items,* the need to acquire versus lack of storage space,* privacy rights versus the public's right to know,* the need for financial patronage versus the need for autonomy,* an item's enduring value versus the cost of its conservation requirements, and* the lure of new preservation technologies versus their unproven lon - gevity.To choose the lemma, that \"horn\" upon which to ride, archivists use intuition, judgment based on training, institutional guidelines, and documents such as the Core Values of Archivists and the Code of Ethics for Archivists (Society of American Archivists, 2011, 2012, 2012). These two documents purport to guide the behavior of archivists who master their 2,300 words. Their histories, found, for example, in Horn (1989, pp. 65 -66) and Cox (2008, pp. 1128-1129), show that committees repeatedly refined these documents, rather than defining fundamental concepts such as \"ethics,\" \"trust,\" and \"profession.\"I suggest that such codes prevent archivists from acting ethically in any sense other than a circular \"according to the code of ethics.\" Karl Popper (1966, p. 552) presented a similar position, excerpted in van Meijl (2000, p. 74) and Wallace (2010, p. 178):What does it [scientific ethics] aim at? At telling us what we ought to do, i.e., at constructing a code of norms upon a scientific basis, so that we need only look up the index of the code if we are faced with a difficult moral decision? This clearly would be absurd; quite apart from the fact that if it could be achieved, it would destroy all personal responsibility and therefore all ethics.Hauptman and Hill (1991, p. 43) also discussed ethical codes with respect to responsibility:[C]ommentators have come to the individual's defense in this context by insisting that since individual members of an organization only do part of a job or only follow instructions (orders) or, by extension, only adhere to an ethical code [emphasis added], they really cannot be held responsible for general negative results.I suggest a somewhat different standard based in part on new or re-worded principal precepts. The bulk of this paper explains the need and derivation of these precepts followed by suggestions for implementation, and the conclusion restates the precepts. Please note that this paper discusses archival enterprise as practiced in the U.S., although the concepts also should apply to archives worldwide. Broader and deeper discussions of archival codes of ethics, per se, occur in Neazor (2007) and Dingwall (2004). Any discussion of ethics, however, requires us archivists to ride our lemmas boldly through several quandaries.First Quandary\"[W]e [philosophers] have first rais'd a Dust, and then complain, we cannot see\" (Berkeley, 1734). Many wits denigrate philosophy through this quotation, and frankly, I ag","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"46-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionEthics has been a persistent topic within the American archival community for more than a half-century, much of it treated, until recently, in the most benign matter (by this I mean that it has been a topic assumed to be important for symbolic reasons but not to possess any substantial practical value in the archivist's daily work). The earliest discussions were mostly about an ethics code, presented almost always as key to claiming that archivists represented not just a community but a profession, and for some, even a discipline (the disciplinary claims have come as a more theoretical and scholarly literature has taken root). We moved from a statement that could be framed and hung on a wall to a more intricate document with specifics encompassing, even advising archivists what to do when they discovered a breach of moral conduct. Would that the discussions had stopped there. Within a relatively brief time the ethics code moved full circle from being an ornamental wall hanging to what became termed an aspirational document, something intended to help archivists understand the ethical dimensions of their work but without fear of censure or other actions if they wandered outside of the parameters of ethical behavior; in other words, the code is intended to give something archivists can aim at but not fret too much if they fall short.1If we examine the professional literature of the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the formative discussion about an ethics code emerged, we can detect some fissures in the ethical foundations of professional practice. In my own essay on professionalism in the mid-1980s, I ended with a comment that archivists had to understand that being professional required both authority and power.2 Even though, just a short time after, archivists began reading about the implicit power of recordkeeping and information systems,3 American archivists generally found it repugnant that they would wield any degree of power. The real substance of issues about power actually emerged within the archival community and its professional associations. While the Society of American Archivists continued to refine its ethics code, these refinements gutted any sense of an ethics process. and the Society's actions in other ways suggested that it had little intention of pursuing an ethical agenda. Debates about the appropriateness of a labor poster on the cover of the American Archivist, access to the records of the Office of Presidential Libraries, and the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials, just to name a few recent cases, have all attested to the significance of ethics as a professional concern and the limitations of American archivists to appropriately frame this topic.4It is not my intent, in this brief essay, to rehash the substance of these debates, especially since I have written about these matters elsewhere. My purpose here is to identify some elements of what I see as the unfinished work on archival ethics, and what I
{"title":"Rethinking Archival Ethics","authors":"R. Cox","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.13","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionEthics has been a persistent topic within the American archival community for more than a half-century, much of it treated, until recently, in the most benign matter (by this I mean that it has been a topic assumed to be important for symbolic reasons but not to possess any substantial practical value in the archivist's daily work). The earliest discussions were mostly about an ethics code, presented almost always as key to claiming that archivists represented not just a community but a profession, and for some, even a discipline (the disciplinary claims have come as a more theoretical and scholarly literature has taken root). We moved from a statement that could be framed and hung on a wall to a more intricate document with specifics encompassing, even advising archivists what to do when they discovered a breach of moral conduct. Would that the discussions had stopped there. Within a relatively brief time the ethics code moved full circle from being an ornamental wall hanging to what became termed an aspirational document, something intended to help archivists understand the ethical dimensions of their work but without fear of censure or other actions if they wandered outside of the parameters of ethical behavior; in other words, the code is intended to give something archivists can aim at but not fret too much if they fall short.1If we examine the professional literature of the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the formative discussion about an ethics code emerged, we can detect some fissures in the ethical foundations of professional practice. In my own essay on professionalism in the mid-1980s, I ended with a comment that archivists had to understand that being professional required both authority and power.2 Even though, just a short time after, archivists began reading about the implicit power of recordkeeping and information systems,3 American archivists generally found it repugnant that they would wield any degree of power. The real substance of issues about power actually emerged within the archival community and its professional associations. While the Society of American Archivists continued to refine its ethics code, these refinements gutted any sense of an ethics process. and the Society's actions in other ways suggested that it had little intention of pursuing an ethical agenda. Debates about the appropriateness of a labor poster on the cover of the American Archivist, access to the records of the Office of Presidential Libraries, and the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials, just to name a few recent cases, have all attested to the significance of ethics as a professional concern and the limitations of American archivists to appropriately frame this topic.4It is not my intent, in this brief essay, to rehash the substance of these debates, especially since I have written about these matters elsewhere. My purpose here is to identify some elements of what I see as the unfinished work on archival ethics, and what I ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"13-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In her exemplary book The Ethical Archivist, Elena S. Danielson devotes a chapter to professional ethics codes and points out that "[m]any informed observers do not feel that complying with the law has any place in a statement on ethics since laws enforce existing power relationships, which may be unfair" (p. 45). I will argue that including civil disobedience principles in ethics codes may be preferable to rejecting legal compliance as a consideration.First, a few words about the purposes of codes of ethics. Do we need them? If not, then we do not need to worry about the legal compliance issue. How many of us ever consult the American Library Association's Code of Ethics, or the code of the Society of American Archivists? Do such professional codes really provide useful guidance in making difficult ethical decisions? While these empirical questions are often raised, they do not address what I regard as the principal value of a professional code of ethics. Even if we grant an argument that it is impossible for a professional code of ethics to be a useful (not to say perfect) guide to selecting the ethical option that is most just and does the least amount of harm in any given situation, I am persuaded that archivists and librarians should promulgate, observe, and honor their professional codes of ethics because the codes are public statements of values that help define us as professionals. The assertion of these values is an important part of proving ourselves worthy of the trust and respect we seek from our peers, patrons, funding agencies, governing and government officials, members of the general public, etc. Adoption of an ethical code is a hallmark of most professions because the very existence of the code is a stipulation of obligations beyond self-interest. The fact that an ethics code is not a simple and infallible means for choosing between different options does not show that the code has no value. A code of ethics is a public assertion that the profession takes its obligations seriously.Thinking of a professional code of ethics as a statement of values and obligations, we return to the question of whether within those statements there should be any consideration of legal compliance. Setting aside the occasional circumstances where old laws remain in force primarily because no one remembers they exist or notices they no longer serve a purpose, it seems undeniable that current laws may enforce existing power relationships. Certainly some or many laws may be in place to protect minorities and mitigate oppression, but for the purposes of our discussion we are concerned with the conditions where those without power, or with little power, are unable to put into place and enforce laws that are not favored by those who do have power. But does it follow that oppressive, dictatorial, unjust governments never pass just laws? Obviously not, and for the sake of the well-being of oneself and one's fellow citizens it would be best, for example, to ob
Elena S. Danielson在她的典范著作《道德档案管理员》(The Ethical Archivist)中专门用了一章来讨论职业道德规范，并指出“任何知情的观察者都不认为遵守法律在道德声明中有任何地位，因为法律强制执行现有的权力关系，这可能是不公平的”(第45页)。我认为，在道德规范中纳入公民不服从原则可能比拒绝法律遵守更可取。首先，简单介绍一下道德规范的目的。我们需要它们吗?如果没有，那么我们就不需要担心法律合规问题。我们中有多少人曾经查阅过美国图书馆协会的道德准则，或者美国档案工作者协会的准则?这些职业准则真的能为做出艰难的道德决定提供有用的指导吗?虽然这些经验性问题经常被提出，但它们并没有解决我所认为的职业道德准则的主要价值。即使我们同意这样一个观点，即职业道德准则不可能成为在任何特定情况下选择最公正、危害最小的道德选择的有用(而不是完美)指南，我也相信档案管理员和图书管理员应该颁布、遵守和尊重他们的职业道德准则，因为这些准则是对价值观的公开陈述，有助于将我们定义为专业人士。这些价值观的主张是证明我们值得同行、赞助人、资助机构、治理和政府官员、公众等的信任和尊重的重要组成部分。采用道德准则是大多数职业的一个标志，因为道德准则的存在本身就是对超越自身利益的义务的规定。道德准则不是在不同选项之间做出选择的简单而可靠的手段，这一事实并不表明道德准则没有价值。道德准则是一种公开声明，表明该行业认真对待自己的义务。将职业道德守则视为价值观和义务的陈述，我们回到这些陈述中是否应该考虑遵守法律的问题。抛开旧法律仍然有效的偶尔情况，主要是因为没有人记得它们的存在或注意到它们不再起作用，现行法律可能会加强现有的权力关系，这似乎是不可否认的。当然，一些或许多法律可能是为了保护少数群体和减轻压迫而制定的，但为了我们讨论的目的，我们关心的是那些没有权力或权力很小的人无法制定和执行那些不受当权者青睐的法律的情况。但这是否意味着压迫、独裁、不公正的政府永远不会通过公正的法律?显然不是，为了自己和同胞的幸福，例如，即使在努力改善或改变不公正的政府时，也要遵守交通法规。当然，不这么认为会让人显得如此不负责任，以至于很难招募到更多的参与者来改变政府。如果这似乎是一个微不足道的问题，那么让我们回顾一下，我们正在审议的立场是，遵守法律的考虑在道德守则中没有地位。如果我们从字面上理解这种说法，那么我们就有权问，什么时候以及为什么不遵守公正的法律符合社会的最大利益。认为某些法律可能导致不公正或加强不公平的权力关系只是回避了这个问题，并忽视了在某些道德情况下，可能存在的法律为采取行动提供了极好的指导，这些行动可以最大化正义，最小化不幸的后果。最明智的做法是承认，在寻求最佳的道德选择时，现行法律可能会有所帮助，也可能会有所阻碍。作为专业人士，我们会仔细审查这些考虑。…
{"title":"A Note on Civil Disobedience and Professional Ethics Codes","authors":"W. Mitchell","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.61","url":null,"abstract":"In her exemplary book The Ethical Archivist, Elena S. Danielson devotes a chapter to professional ethics codes and points out that \"[m]any informed observers do not feel that complying with the law has any place in a statement on ethics since laws enforce existing power relationships, which may be unfair\" (p. 45). I will argue that including civil disobedience principles in ethics codes may be preferable to rejecting legal compliance as a consideration.First, a few words about the purposes of codes of ethics. Do we need them? If not, then we do not need to worry about the legal compliance issue. How many of us ever consult the American Library Association's Code of Ethics, or the code of the Society of American Archivists? Do such professional codes really provide useful guidance in making difficult ethical decisions? While these empirical questions are often raised, they do not address what I regard as the principal value of a professional code of ethics. Even if we grant an argument that it is impossible for a professional code of ethics to be a useful (not to say perfect) guide to selecting the ethical option that is most just and does the least amount of harm in any given situation, I am persuaded that archivists and librarians should promulgate, observe, and honor their professional codes of ethics because the codes are public statements of values that help define us as professionals. The assertion of these values is an important part of proving ourselves worthy of the trust and respect we seek from our peers, patrons, funding agencies, governing and government officials, members of the general public, etc. Adoption of an ethical code is a hallmark of most professions because the very existence of the code is a stipulation of obligations beyond self-interest. The fact that an ethics code is not a simple and infallible means for choosing between different options does not show that the code has no value. A code of ethics is a public assertion that the profession takes its obligations seriously.Thinking of a professional code of ethics as a statement of values and obligations, we return to the question of whether within those statements there should be any consideration of legal compliance. Setting aside the occasional circumstances where old laws remain in force primarily because no one remembers they exist or notices they no longer serve a purpose, it seems undeniable that current laws may enforce existing power relationships. Certainly some or many laws may be in place to protect minorities and mitigate oppression, but for the purposes of our discussion we are concerned with the conditions where those without power, or with little power, are unable to put into place and enforce laws that are not favored by those who do have power. But does it follow that oppressive, dictatorial, unjust governments never pass just laws? Obviously not, and for the sake of the well-being of oneself and one's fellow citizens it would be best, for example, to ob","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"61-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One of the most contentious cultural property stories of the early 21st century is the restitution of displaced treasures, from Nazi-stolen artwork to looted archeological finds to rare manuscripts. "Replevin," according to lawyerarchivist Menzi L. Behrnd-Klodt, "is one of several ancient common law remedies used to recover wrongfully taken personal property from whomever took it or holds it unlawfully."1 When analyzed in simple terms, returning stolen objects to the rightful owner clearly is the right thing to do. In 2012, newspapers reported that Barry H. Landau, a once respected presidential historian, was convicted of removing manuscripts from archives. His finds included letters by Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Franklin Roosevelt. He was sentenced to seven years in jail and forced to pay $46,525 in restitution to dealers who had bought manuscripts from him in good faith. Several thousand documents were recovered from his residence and returned. More displaced documents are currently being traced. By all accounts, justice has been served.2Several spectacularly successful replevin and restitution actions have recently wrested valued acquisitions from well-funded museums.3 In 2007, after years of legal wrangling and public controversy, the J. Paul Getty Museum of Los Angeles returned 40 ancient masterpieces to Italy including a massive statue of Aphrodite. The Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York, which in 1972 acquired a rare, classic painted vase called the Euphronios krater, returned it to Italy in 2008 after lengthy and contentious negotiations. The United States government has cooperated with the government of Mongolia to reclaim and repatriate a dinosaur skeleton, eight feet high and twenty-four feet long, removed from the Gobi desert for sale in the United States. The Mongolian police, Interpol, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were all involved. Through the process of restitution litigation, the long-dead dinosaur has become a celebrated symbol of national pride in Mongolia, and its return scheduled for 2013 is cause for a hero's welcome.4 Treasures occasionally, although less frequently, travel in the opposite direction across the Atlantic. In 2006, the Osterreichische Galerie Belvedere in Vienna was forced to surrender five masterpieces by Gustav Klimt, paintings restituted to distant heirs now living in the United States, again after a protracted court battle.5Like paintings, antiquities and fossils, archives are cultural property and many of the same principles apply. If anything, public records, as a nation's memory, have a stronger claim to inalienability than artwork. This claim has been recognized in treaties for hundreds of years.6 Leopold Auer has identified dozens of international disputes over archival collections. Many such disputes have festered for decades.7 In 1866, France seized 297 volumes of Korean royal archives, which ended up in the Bibliotheque nationale de France where they were cataloged as
21世纪初最有争议的文化财产故事之一是归还流离失所的宝藏，从纳粹盗窃的艺术品到被掠夺的考古发现，再到罕见的手稿。据档案律师门齐·l·贝伦德-克洛特说，“追回”是古代普通法中用于从非法占有或非法持有的人手中收回被非法占有的个人财产的几种补救措施之一。从简单的角度分析，将被盗物品物归原主显然是正确的做法。2012年，报纸报道称，曾受人尊敬的总统历史学家巴里·h·兰道(Barry H. Landau)因从档案馆中移走手稿而被判有罪。他的发现包括玛丽·安托瓦内特、卡尔·马克思和富兰克林·罗斯福的信件。他被判处七年监禁，并被迫向那些善意购买他手稿的交易商支付46,525美元的赔偿金。从他的住所找到并归还了数千份文件。目前正在追查更多流离失所的文件。大家都说，正义得到了伸张。最近，几起极为成功的追回和归还行动从资金雄厚的博物馆手中夺取了价值不菲的藏品2007年，经过多年的法律纠纷和公众争议，洛杉矶的j·保罗·盖蒂博物馆(J. Paul Getty Museum)将40件古代杰作归还给意大利，其中包括一尊巨大的阿芙罗狄蒂雕像。纽约大都会艺术博物馆(Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York)在1972年获得了一件名为Euphronios krater的罕见经典彩绘花瓶，经过漫长而有争议的谈判，于2008年将其归还意大利。美国政府与蒙古政府合作，收回并运回一具恐龙骨架，高8英尺，长24英尺，从戈壁沙漠中移出，准备在美国出售。蒙古警方、国际刑警组织和美国移民和海关执法局都参与其中。通过赔偿诉讼的过程，这只死去已久的恐龙已经成为蒙古民族自豪感的象征，它定于2013年回归，受到了英雄般的欢迎偶尔，尽管不那么频繁，宝藏会以相反的方向穿越大西洋。2006年，维也纳的Belvedere画廊(Osterreichische Galerie Belvedere)被迫交出了古斯塔夫·克里姆特(Gustav Klimt)的五幅杰作，这些画作在经过一场旷日持久的官司后，又被归还给了目前居住在美国的远方继承人。像绘画、古物和化石一样，档案也是文化财产，许多相同的原则也适用于它们。如果说有什么不同的话，作为一个国家的记忆，公共记录比艺术品更有不可剥夺性。这一主张几百年来一直在条约中得到承认利奥波德·奥尔(Leopold Auer)指出了数十起关于档案收藏的国际争端。许多这样的争端已经恶化了几十年1866年，法国没收了297册韩国王室档案，并将其编入法国国立图书馆，归类为中国手稿。1993年密特朗总统还给了韩国一册。剩下的296人在145年后的2011年回到了家乡书籍和手稿在韩国文化中一直享有崇高的地位。早在古腾堡之前的1377年，韩国就出现了第一本用金属活字印刷的书。一些策展人声称，在归还被转移的文化财产的方向上，钟摆摆得太远了，以至于学术研究受到抑制，公众被剥夺了受教育的机会，文物本身也受到了威胁难道本意良好的归还工作只会导致手稿第二次流离失所，并带来所有随之而来的危险吗?在国际舞台上，目前的辩论使接受国的博物馆和档案馆等收藏家与来源国的受害方对立起来。双方的主张都有充分的理由。因为法律可以改变和重新解释，司法判决经常不一致，本文将重点放在道德和伦理的论点和理由上，而不是法律上的。…
{"title":"Archives and the Ethics of Replevin","authors":"Elena S. Danielson","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.110","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most contentious cultural property stories of the early 21st century is the restitution of displaced treasures, from Nazi-stolen artwork to looted archeological finds to rare manuscripts. \"Replevin,\" according to lawyerarchivist Menzi L. Behrnd-Klodt, \"is one of several ancient common law remedies used to recover wrongfully taken personal property from whomever took it or holds it unlawfully.\"1 When analyzed in simple terms, returning stolen objects to the rightful owner clearly is the right thing to do. In 2012, newspapers reported that Barry H. Landau, a once respected presidential historian, was convicted of removing manuscripts from archives. His finds included letters by Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Franklin Roosevelt. He was sentenced to seven years in jail and forced to pay $46,525 in restitution to dealers who had bought manuscripts from him in good faith. Several thousand documents were recovered from his residence and returned. More displaced documents are currently being traced. By all accounts, justice has been served.2Several spectacularly successful replevin and restitution actions have recently wrested valued acquisitions from well-funded museums.3 In 2007, after years of legal wrangling and public controversy, the J. Paul Getty Museum of Los Angeles returned 40 ancient masterpieces to Italy including a massive statue of Aphrodite. The Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York, which in 1972 acquired a rare, classic painted vase called the Euphronios krater, returned it to Italy in 2008 after lengthy and contentious negotiations. The United States government has cooperated with the government of Mongolia to reclaim and repatriate a dinosaur skeleton, eight feet high and twenty-four feet long, removed from the Gobi desert for sale in the United States. The Mongolian police, Interpol, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were all involved. Through the process of restitution litigation, the long-dead dinosaur has become a celebrated symbol of national pride in Mongolia, and its return scheduled for 2013 is cause for a hero's welcome.4 Treasures occasionally, although less frequently, travel in the opposite direction across the Atlantic. In 2006, the Osterreichische Galerie Belvedere in Vienna was forced to surrender five masterpieces by Gustav Klimt, paintings restituted to distant heirs now living in the United States, again after a protracted court battle.5Like paintings, antiquities and fossils, archives are cultural property and many of the same principles apply. If anything, public records, as a nation's memory, have a stronger claim to inalienability than artwork. This claim has been recognized in treaties for hundreds of years.6 Leopold Auer has identified dozens of international disputes over archival collections. Many such disputes have festered for decades.7 In 1866, France seized 297 volumes of Korean royal archives, which ended up in the Bibliotheque nationale de France where they were cataloged as ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"110-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal: Personal and Psychological Insights","authors":"R. Eisenman","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"8-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality Richard Thompson Ford. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Clothbound. 272 pages. ISBN 978-0-374-25035-5. $27.00In November 2011, the long- awaited fifth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary was published. Among the many new words and terms that interested readers could find was "anchor baby," defined as "[a] child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family." Within scant weeks, this definition was revised, at the behest of Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, who called it "poisonous and derogatory" on a blog post that quickly metastasized. The editors issued an apology, formally designated the term "offensive," and rewrote the definition to emphasize the disparaging way that it is used by those on one side of the debate "over whether to change the Constitution to deny automatic American citizenship to children born in [the United States] to illegal immigrant parents."1 A small but important victory for the rights of immigrants was duly proclaimed.But was it a victory that provided meaningful aid to immigrants? Or was it, as some commentators fulminated, a case of political correctness gone awry?2 Could Giovagnoli's success in orchestrating a change in the original definition of "anchor baby" be, on the lexicographic level, an example of what Richard Thompson Ford had in mind when he wrote Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality?Ford's central thesis is nothing if not bold-sure to be disputed by those who have taken advantage of the necessary gains brought about by American civil- rights laws (CRLs) in the 1960s to wrest for themselves undeserved individual entitlements that, paradoxically, further entrench inequalities. CRLs, he explains, were once vital in combating the "outright discrimination and overt prejudice" that was prevalent in the United States some fifty years ago. However, because the "most serious social injustices" in the contemporary era "aren't caused by bias and bigotry" but rather by long- term structural factors, continued reliance both on the rhetoric of civil rights and the court system to enforce existing CRLs and/or expand their ambit often "distract[s] attention from ... real problems, emphasizing dramatic incidents that aren't good examples of ... larger injustices" (pp. 9-10). Engaging in social protests as a matter of "style" rather than "substance" and conceptualizing rights "as entitlements to be exploited to the maximum extent possible," opportunists such as "special- interest lobbying groups" and political activists "twist[ed] and pervert[ed] the legacy of civil rights" in order "to get an edge in competitive schools and job markets, demanding special privileges, a disproportionate share of public reso
《权利错了:法律如何腐蚀争取平等的斗争》理查德·汤普森·福特著。纽约:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011。精装本，272页。ISBN 978-0-374-25035-5。27美元2011年11月，人们期待已久的第五版《美国传统词典》出版了。感兴趣的读者可以在众多新词和术语中找到“锚婴”(anchor baby)，它的定义是“在一个国家出生的非公民母亲所生的孩子，在这个国家出生的孩子会自动获得公民身份，尤其是那些希望自己(通常是其他家庭成员)最终获得公民身份的父母所生的孩子。”在移民政策中心(Immigration Policy Center)主任玛丽·乔瓦尼诺里(Mary Giovagnoli)的要求下，这一定义在几周内就被修改了。乔瓦尼诺里在一篇博客文章中称这一定义是“有毒和贬损的”，并迅速传播开来。编辑们发表了一份道歉声明，正式将这个词定义为“冒犯性的”，并重新定义了这个词的定义，以强调“是否应该修改宪法，以拒绝非法移民父母在(美国)出生的孩子自动获得美国公民身份”这一争论的一方使用这个词的轻蔑方式。移民权利的一个小而重要的胜利被正式宣布。但这场胜利为移民提供了有意义的帮助吗?还是像一些评论人士斥责的那样，这是政治正确出错的一个例子?在词典编纂层面上，乔瓦尼诺里成功地改变了“锚婴”的原始定义，这是否可以作为理查德·汤普森·福特(Richard Thompson Ford)在《错误的权利:法律如何腐化争取平等的斗争》(Rights Gone Wrong: Law How Corrupts for Equality)一书中设想的一个例子?福特的中心论点如果不大胆就毫无意义——肯定会遭到那些利用20世纪60年代美国民权法(CRLs)带来的必要收益来为自己争取不应得的个人权利的人的争议，矛盾的是，这进一步巩固了不平等。他解释说，在与大约50年前在美国盛行的“赤裸裸的歧视和公开的偏见”作斗争时，crl曾经是至关重要的。然而，由于当代“最严重的社会不公正”“不是由偏见和偏执造成的”，而是由长期的结构性因素造成的”，继续依靠民权和法院系统的修辞来执行现有的法律责任和/或扩大其范围，往往“分散了人们对……真正的问题，强调戏剧性的事件，不是很好的例子。更大的不公正”(第9-10页)。将社会抗议视为"形式"问题而非"实质"问题，并将权利概念化为"应尽最大可能加以利用的权利";机会主义者，如“特殊利益游说团体”和政治活动家“扭曲和歪曲了公民权利的遗产”，以便“在竞争激烈的学校和就业市场上获得优势，要求特殊特权，不成比例的公共资源份额，甚至作为公民权利问题的现金”(第11、14、23-24页)。他们将权利视为一种“世俗宗教”，将“权利极端主义的法律文化”与“自助、个人成长和自我实现”等流行文化的俗套相结合，制造出一种有毒的混合物，其中“自我痴迷与个人美德的结合滋生了唯我论和自我正义，从而激发了错误的权利主张”(第19,24页)。焦点不再是“有形的经济或政治伤害”，而是模糊定义的“自尊和尊严”概念——这是“民权运动中强大的心理治疗股”的遗产，它催生了自我一代的自恋，这一代的成员开始认为“几乎任何个人信仰或自私的欲望都足够深刻，应该得到民权保护”(第18,29页)。福特考察了许多这样的自私欲望，首先关注的是残疾人权利的问题，这是一个高度敏感的话题，如果有一个话题的话，可以从2012年初关于严格定义轻度自闭症阿斯伯格综合症(或“广泛性发育障碍”)的激烈辩论中看出，[PDD- NOS])，因为教育部的数据显示，在过去十年中，“公立学校中6至21岁的自闭症学生人数翻了两番”。…
{"title":"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality","authors":"J. Dilevko","doi":"10.5860/choice.49-5952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-5952","url":null,"abstract":"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality Richard Thompson Ford. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Clothbound. 272 pages. ISBN 978-0-374-25035-5. $27.00In November 2011, the long- awaited fifth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary was published. Among the many new words and terms that interested readers could find was \"anchor baby,\" defined as \"[a] child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.\" Within scant weeks, this definition was revised, at the behest of Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, who called it \"poisonous and derogatory\" on a blog post that quickly metastasized. The editors issued an apology, formally designated the term \"offensive,\" and rewrote the definition to emphasize the disparaging way that it is used by those on one side of the debate \"over whether to change the Constitution to deny automatic American citizenship to children born in [the United States] to illegal immigrant parents.\"1 A small but important victory for the rights of immigrants was duly proclaimed.But was it a victory that provided meaningful aid to immigrants? Or was it, as some commentators fulminated, a case of political correctness gone awry?2 Could Giovagnoli's success in orchestrating a change in the original definition of \"anchor baby\" be, on the lexicographic level, an example of what Richard Thompson Ford had in mind when he wrote Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality?Ford's central thesis is nothing if not bold-sure to be disputed by those who have taken advantage of the necessary gains brought about by American civil- rights laws (CRLs) in the 1960s to wrest for themselves undeserved individual entitlements that, paradoxically, further entrench inequalities. CRLs, he explains, were once vital in combating the \"outright discrimination and overt prejudice\" that was prevalent in the United States some fifty years ago. However, because the \"most serious social injustices\" in the contemporary era \"aren't caused by bias and bigotry\" but rather by long- term structural factors, continued reliance both on the rhetoric of civil rights and the court system to enforce existing CRLs and/or expand their ambit often \"distract[s] attention from ... real problems, emphasizing dramatic incidents that aren't good examples of ... larger injustices\" (pp. 9-10). Engaging in social protests as a matter of \"style\" rather than \"substance\" and conceptualizing rights \"as entitlements to be exploited to the maximum extent possible,\" opportunists such as \"special- interest lobbying groups\" and political activists \"twist[ed] and pervert[ed] the legacy of civil rights\" in order \"to get an edge in competitive schools and job markets, demanding special privileges, a disproportionate share of public reso","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71137760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. Philosophy in the Library: A Healthy Debate or a State of Confusion?Lately there seems to be considerable debate-or confusion, depending on how you understand it-as to what libraries are, what is the proper object of study for library science, and even whether or not library science is really scientific. Enter the philosophers, and who knew there were so many among us! Although Zwadlo (1997) cited a 1934 paper by Danton in which it was reported that only 1 to 5 percent of library publications have any philosophical discussion, the debate about philosophy for libraries renewed in the 1990s, and Danton would be astonished at the number of publications appearing since the year 2000. One of the most noticeable aspects of this renewed interest is a focus on epistemological and ontological issues, a focus that can be traced back to a series of papers published in Library Quarterly in the 1990s (see Radford [1992], Budd [1995], Zwadlo [1997] and Dick [1999]). That was largely an AngloAmerican academic debate (Dick writing in English from South Africa). The task I set myself in this paper was to look at the debate during the past decade, and especially to consider views from beyond the Anglo-American universe. I chose seven books to examine, looking at them in particular for the political and ethical dimensions of the discussion.2. The Library: A Radically Political InstitutionI shall begin with Serbian librarian Zeljko Vuckovic's 2003 monograph Javne biblioteke i javno znanje (which could be translated in English as Public libraries and public knowledge). Like the other authors discussed below, he focuses on epistemological issues; more than any of the others he is concerned with the potential of libraries for political life. The hypothesis the author wishes to explore is the following:Public libraries are the most open and most democratic form of the institutionalization and use of public knowledge. Hence their key role in designing and building a library information system and infrastructure and their strategic importance in economic and social development. Providing free, equal and unrestricted access to the achievements of culture and civilization, to knowledge, ideas and information, the public library contributes to the development of a democratic public and the quality of life in the community, and the practical realization of the concept of rational communication [Vuckovic, 2003, p. 7].Jesse Shera's social epistemology is a guiding theoretical-methodological orientation in the first half of this work as the author proceeds through a discussion of terminology and chapters on the function of the library, public librarianship as a social institution, the development of the idea of public librarianship, and the legal foundations and history of public libraries in Serbia. The second half of the book looks at public librarianship in the context of international legal regimes, UNESCO declarations and IFLA, the public library as part of postmodern cu
1. 图书馆哲学:健康的辩论还是混乱的状态?最近，关于图书馆是什么，图书馆学的适当研究对象是什么，甚至图书馆学是否真的是科学，似乎有相当多的争论或困惑，这取决于你如何理解它。哲学家们进来了，谁知道我们中间有这么多人呢!虽然Zwadlo(1997)引用了丹东1934年的一篇论文，其中报道说只有1%到5%的图书馆出版物进行了哲学讨论，但关于图书馆哲学的争论在20世纪90年代重新开始，丹东会对2000年以来出现的出版物数量感到惊讶。这种新兴趣最引人注目的方面之一是对认识论和本体论问题的关注，这一关注可以追溯到20世纪90年代在《图书馆季刊》上发表的一系列论文(见Radford [1992]， Budd [1995]， Zwadlo[1997]和Dick[1999])。这在很大程度上是一场英美学术辩论(迪克在南非用英语写作)。我在这篇论文中给自己设定的任务是审视过去十年的辩论，尤其是考虑来自英美世界以外的观点。我选择了七本书来研究，特别是从政治和伦理的角度来讨论。图书馆:一个激进的政治机构我将从塞尔维亚图书管理员Zeljko Vuckovic 2003年的专著Javne biblioteke i javno znanje(英文可以翻译为公共图书馆和公共知识)开始。像下面讨论的其他作者一样，他关注认识论问题;他比其他任何人都更关心图书馆在政治生活中的潜力。笔者希望探讨的假设是:公共图书馆是公共知识制度化和使用的最开放、最民主的形式。因此，他们在设计和建设图书馆信息系统和基础设施方面具有关键作用，在经济和社会发展中具有重要的战略意义。公共图书馆提供免费、平等和不受限制地获取文化和文明成果，获取知识、思想和信息，有助于民主公众和社区生活质量的发展，有助于理性沟通概念的实际实现[Vuckovic, 2003，第7页]。杰西·谢拉的社会认识论是本书前半部分的理论方法论指导方向，作者通过对图书馆功能的术语和章节的讨论，公共图书馆作为一种社会机构，公共图书馆理念的发展，以及塞尔维亚公共图书馆的法律基础和历史。本书的后半部分着眼于国际法律制度、联合国教科文组织宣言和国际图联背景下的公共图书馆事业、作为后现代文化一部分的公共图书馆以及信息社会中公共图书馆的变化和挑战。在关于塞尔维亚公共图书馆技术信息系统发展的简短一章之后，还有关于公共图书馆事业的哲学和价值论原则的更短一章。我最感兴趣的是最后那几页，因为书中讨论的是假设这些原则，而不是争论它们。最后一章以这样一个问题开始:“为什么在一个以服务和客户为导向的活动中，在一个主要是实用和务实的领域中要考虑哲学?”(p。174)。这是一个几乎每个作者都会问的问题。他认为，答案取决于哲学探究的定义，但更重要的是取决于人们是否认为图书馆事业需要一个系统的理论基础。笔者认为，“系统理论”是职业责任的标志和衡量标准。…
{"title":"What Happened to Politics and Ethics? Seven 21st Century Library Philosophers on the Epistemological and Ontological Foundations of Library Science","authors":"D. Bade","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.1.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.80","url":null,"abstract":"1. Philosophy in the Library: A Healthy Debate or a State of Confusion?Lately there seems to be considerable debate-or confusion, depending on how you understand it-as to what libraries are, what is the proper object of study for library science, and even whether or not library science is really scientific. Enter the philosophers, and who knew there were so many among us! Although Zwadlo (1997) cited a 1934 paper by Danton in which it was reported that only 1 to 5 percent of library publications have any philosophical discussion, the debate about philosophy for libraries renewed in the 1990s, and Danton would be astonished at the number of publications appearing since the year 2000. One of the most noticeable aspects of this renewed interest is a focus on epistemological and ontological issues, a focus that can be traced back to a series of papers published in Library Quarterly in the 1990s (see Radford [1992], Budd [1995], Zwadlo [1997] and Dick [1999]). That was largely an AngloAmerican academic debate (Dick writing in English from South Africa). The task I set myself in this paper was to look at the debate during the past decade, and especially to consider views from beyond the Anglo-American universe. I chose seven books to examine, looking at them in particular for the political and ethical dimensions of the discussion.2. The Library: A Radically Political InstitutionI shall begin with Serbian librarian Zeljko Vuckovic's 2003 monograph Javne biblioteke i javno znanje (which could be translated in English as Public libraries and public knowledge). Like the other authors discussed below, he focuses on epistemological issues; more than any of the others he is concerned with the potential of libraries for political life. The hypothesis the author wishes to explore is the following:Public libraries are the most open and most democratic form of the institutionalization and use of public knowledge. Hence their key role in designing and building a library information system and infrastructure and their strategic importance in economic and social development. Providing free, equal and unrestricted access to the achievements of culture and civilization, to knowledge, ideas and information, the public library contributes to the development of a democratic public and the quality of life in the community, and the practical realization of the concept of rational communication [Vuckovic, 2003, p. 7].Jesse Shera's social epistemology is a guiding theoretical-methodological orientation in the first half of this work as the author proceeds through a discussion of terminology and chapters on the function of the library, public librarianship as a social institution, the development of the idea of public librarianship, and the legal foundations and history of public libraries in Serbia. The second half of the book looks at public librarianship in the context of international legal regimes, UNESCO declarations and IFLA, the public library as part of postmodern cu","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"80-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionThe scholarly publishing industry has witnessed the appearance of numerous scholarly, open- access publishers, an innovation that has made many thousands and even millions of scholarly articles available for free over the Internet. The open- access movement has benefitted from the goodwill of countless authors, organizations, funding agencies, and open- access repositories. Unfortunately, as with any large- scale innovation, there has emerged a cadre of racketeers, distributed worldwide, who seek to exploit the open- access (OA) model for their own financial gain. These unscrupulous publishers abuse the authorpays model of open access publishing only for their own profit, engaging in dishonest, deceptive, and unethical practices, and mocking the goodwill of those who promote scholarly, open- access publishing. This article identifies and examines unethical practices in scholarly, open- access publishing, limiting its focus to those publishers employing the gold "author- pays" model.Etiology of the Unethical PracticesOne of the sources of the current problem is the common belief or assumption that all open- access publishing is meritorious, benevolent, and wellintentioned, a belief promoted by librarians and others backing the open- access movement. Many academic librarians blindly and comprehensively promote scholarly, open- access publishing, which means they are partially promoting publishers committing unethical practices.The nature of gold open- access publishing means that those who promote the model must qualify their recommendations. In the traditional scholarly publication model, the market served to prevent or eliminate publishers that engaged in unethical practices; that market control is non- existent in the openaccess model, especially given the minimal startup barriers and low operating costs of open- access publishing. For example, no library would pay for a journal known to be bogus, but bogus journals that are free are unbounded by the startup cost barrier. And because predatory publishers are masters of deception, it is easy for them to fool submitting authors into thinking they are legitimate. Moreover, in the online environment it is especially easy for an unethical publisher to appear legitimate. Also, the very nature of the author- pays model is a conflict of interest; the more articles a gold OA publisher accepts, the more money it earns.Reading a bibliography, vita, or list of published works, it is hard to identify journals from unethical publishers. The titles they use mimic those of legitimate journals and begin with phrases such as "International Journal of...." This sideby- side placement of both legitimate and illegitimate journals is a loss, for no longer can one assume that an unfamiliar but legitimate sounding journal is in fact legitimate; further investigation is required, creating new burdens for those engaged in the evaluation of scholarly activities or in judging research grant applications.Other S
{"title":"Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing","authors":"J. Beall","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.1.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.11","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe scholarly publishing industry has witnessed the appearance of numerous scholarly, open- access publishers, an innovation that has made many thousands and even millions of scholarly articles available for free over the Internet. The open- access movement has benefitted from the goodwill of countless authors, organizations, funding agencies, and open- access repositories. Unfortunately, as with any large- scale innovation, there has emerged a cadre of racketeers, distributed worldwide, who seek to exploit the open- access (OA) model for their own financial gain. These unscrupulous publishers abuse the authorpays model of open access publishing only for their own profit, engaging in dishonest, deceptive, and unethical practices, and mocking the goodwill of those who promote scholarly, open- access publishing. This article identifies and examines unethical practices in scholarly, open- access publishing, limiting its focus to those publishers employing the gold \"author- pays\" model.Etiology of the Unethical PracticesOne of the sources of the current problem is the common belief or assumption that all open- access publishing is meritorious, benevolent, and wellintentioned, a belief promoted by librarians and others backing the open- access movement. Many academic librarians blindly and comprehensively promote scholarly, open- access publishing, which means they are partially promoting publishers committing unethical practices.The nature of gold open- access publishing means that those who promote the model must qualify their recommendations. In the traditional scholarly publication model, the market served to prevent or eliminate publishers that engaged in unethical practices; that market control is non- existent in the openaccess model, especially given the minimal startup barriers and low operating costs of open- access publishing. For example, no library would pay for a journal known to be bogus, but bogus journals that are free are unbounded by the startup cost barrier. And because predatory publishers are masters of deception, it is easy for them to fool submitting authors into thinking they are legitimate. Moreover, in the online environment it is especially easy for an unethical publisher to appear legitimate. Also, the very nature of the author- pays model is a conflict of interest; the more articles a gold OA publisher accepts, the more money it earns.Reading a bibliography, vita, or list of published works, it is hard to identify journals from unethical publishers. The titles they use mimic those of legitimate journals and begin with phrases such as \"International Journal of....\" This sideby- side placement of both legitimate and illegitimate journals is a loss, for no longer can one assume that an unfamiliar but legitimate sounding journal is in fact legitimate; further investigation is required, creating new burdens for those engaged in the evaluation of scholarly activities or in judging research grant applications.Other S","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"11-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3172/JIE.22.1.11","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69756915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：